Government plans risk weakening human rights: report
Government proposals to reform the Human Rights Act risk weakening existing human rights protections, the UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has warned in a report published today.
The cross-party committee's 12 MPs and peers criticise proposals to replace the protections in the Act with a "British" Bill of Rights, finding that they would instead cause confusion and result in more cases being sent to the European Court of Human Rights. They also conclude that attempts to strengthen freedom of speech could undermine the principle that all rights are equal and fundamental, and with it the enforcement of other rights, including the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial.
The report finds that the Human Rights Act has been successful in strengthening the ability of people in the UK to enforce their rights, and this would only be weakened by the Government’s proposals.
Placing greater restrictions on who can bring a human rights claim, or reducing the damages owed to a claimant because of a perception of them being undeserving, would contravene the fundamental principle that human rights are universal.
Fears that UK courts are taking decisions that should be made by Parliament are unfounded, the committee states, as is the perceived need for the right to a trial by jury to be included in a Bill of Rights. Proposals designed to distance the UK courts from decisions made in the European Court of Human Rights would create legal uncertainty, fail to improve how human rights are enforced, and be likely to make litigation more costly and time-consuming.
The committee notes that since the Human Rights Act became law, the number of cases brought against the UK in Strasbourg has fallen and UK courts now oversee the majority of cases. This allows cases to be decided with greater respect to the broader legal and societal context of the UK, while also producing judgments that influence case law in the Strasbourg Court. This would be undone if the obligation for UK courts to take into account judgments from Strasbourg would be weakened.
Courts and Parliament
Rejecting the Government's concern that the Human Rights Act has led to the courts making decisions that should be made by Parliament, the report concludes that recent case law shows the courts are applying the Act correctly, balancing respect for parliamentary sovereignty with effective protection for human rights.
However, the committee would welcome a more structured system to improve collaboration between itself, the Government and Parliament when legislation is found to be incompatible with human rights. In such cases, it proposes that the Government should set out a timetable and method for resolving human rights violations, allowing greater accountability and ensuring more timely action to address them.
It also states that to give Parliament a greater role in scrutinising bills for human rights compliance, Parliament should always be provided with good quality human rights analysis when a bill is introduced, justifying the minister’s assessment of human rights compatibility, and allowed adequate time in the legislative process for effective scrutiny.
As regards what the Government sees as frivolous human rights claims, proposing a new permission stage at which a claimant would have to prove they had suffered a "significant disadvantage" before they can pursue a claim, the committee finds that the case for such a measure is weak given the courts are already able to reject claims if they lack merit.
Attempting to alter the balance of decisions on damages by focusing on factors likely to weigh in favour of the state would also risk interfering with the courts discretion.
Nor it is "necessary or proportionate" to impose further restrictions on rights in relation to deportation cases: another proposal that would undermine the fundamental principle that rights are universal.
It also voices "deep concerns" about plans to reduce the amount of damages a claimant is entitled to based on their past conduct. Human rights are universal, and the committee finds that any attempt to categorise claimants as undeserving of effective protections has no place in law.
It further regards the Government's proposal to recognise the right to jury trial in the Bill of Rights as "largely symbolic", as well as hard to reconcile with the Bill of Rights reflecting values held across the UK, as the right to jury trial does not exist in Scottish procedure.
And in relation to devolution, the committee states that given the importance of the Human Rights Act in the devolved nations, "we are concerned that the Government proposals could have unintended consequences for the constitutional settlement in the UK".
"Not proven"
Harriet Harman MP, chair of the joint committee, commented on publication of the report: "The Government’s case that human rights legislation is in serious need of reform is not proven. There is nothing in their consultation that would serve to strengthen the protections we currently have and much that would weaken them.
"In many cases what is described as the strengthening of rights is simply tweaking what is already protected, while at the same time making it harder for people to actually enforce their rights.
"At present, freedom of expression is protected and given proper balance with other rights that are also important. The courts respect the primacy of Parliament when making their rulings, so there is no need for change on that. Most human rights cases are heard in UK courts by the UK judiciary, rather than Strasbourg judges in the European Court of Human Rights.
"The Government is purporting to solve non-existent problems and offering solutions that would only cause confusion and detriment to those who need their rights protecting."
She concluded: "If the Government wanted to strengthen human rights they would improve how they are respected in general, improve education so that everyone knows their rights and improve access to the courts for those needing to enforce them. Improving awareness and understanding of human rights and access to the courts would have a beneficial impact, unlike the Government’s current proposals."
Read the full report, or a summary.